I am writing up a oneshot and I got to a bit where the party is ambushed, and I wanted to give them a chance to avoid being ambushed, but when 5 people roll a D20, at least one of them is bound to succeed most of the time, making it a moot point.
As such, I decided to use passive perception to prompt the perception check - in this case, any character with passive perception 15 can attempt a DC15 perception check to notice the ambush. There are 3 levels of awareness available - not a clue (PP<15), saw something out of the corner of your eye, not sure what (PP15+, failed check), or noticing the ambush (PP15+, passed check).
Has anyone else used this two-stage mechanic to avoid the whole party rolling checks and then inevitably one of them passing, and so telling the group? I think it seems quite neat, and I'm looking forward to using it!
I've heard of this system being used on this forum before, wherein the Passive Perception sets the DC for a Active Perception roll. I think it's an easier way to wrap one's head around the stat, and it's one I might try instead of the method I've banged on about before (or use this to compliment my existing method of using Passive Perception).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
I never used a check for an ambush where the diffulty is based on the observer's Perception score. I instead use Passive Perception vs Dexterity ( Stealth) check or a set DC.
Using the observer's Perception score means the higher one have less chance to notice the ambush than the lower one and it's not something i would ever use. Being more perceptive should facilitate spotting ambush, not make it harder.
I do this all the time, but I don't use passive scores to set a baseline DC. I just prompt certain people to make rolls. The rest don't get to (unless they asked). I also have a house rule that no more than two players can roll for the same thing except in particular situations.
In ambush situations, I just ask the wizard (passive perception 21) and the bard (passive 18) to roll perception checks if the party isn't already keeping an eye on their surroundings. And in roleplay, the ever-suspicious cleric (passive insight 22) gets occasional unprompted whispers about NPCs.
I tend to use passives similar to what Theologyofbagels does, to cue ME as to who gets to roll when. It prevents dogpile rolling on stuff, which some groups tend to want to try. Passive Perception I use as the OP stated, you notice something seems off, or similar, to a specific character. I've had others say "I want to do a perception check too!" and I reply "Everything looks normal to you," without even seeing a roll. Players need to learn they make rolls for checks when the DM says they do, not when they want to spam rolls at something to "win" by sheer number of attempts.
Passives high enough to just "see" something walking by means I messed up the DC. Why the heck would I set a DC of 15 on a "hidden" door when the Rogue has a PP of 19?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side. Any character or monster that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter.
If you're surprised, you can't move or take an action on your first turn of the combat, and you can't take a reaction until that turn ends. A member of a group can be surprised even if the other members aren't.
Basically, you only need one monster failing their check to prevent surprise. Below is an example.
Monsters' Stealth Checks
Goblin: 21
Bugbear: 14
Hobgoblin: 11
Orc: 10
PCs' Passive Perceptions
Cleric: 17
Rogue: 14
Fighter: 12
Paladin: 9
The cleric, rogue and fighter all noticed the orc, so they aren't surprised. Unlike them, the paladin failed to notice anything and is definitely surprised. However, no one noticed the goblin, so no one knows he's there until he reveals himself. The bugbear also successfully hid his presence from the fighter. Now let's see what happens once initiative is rolled.
Order of Initiative
Rogue: 22
Fighter: 19
Goblin: 16
Paladin: 15
Orc: 13
Bugbear: 8
Cleric: 6
Hobgoblin: 5
The rogue and fighter both act first, but they don't know that a goblin is hiding, so they only get to choose who of the other three they want to attack first. Next up is the goblin who attack with advantage due to being hidden, but now the whole party is aware of his presence. The paladin is surprised and skips his turn. The orc can now attack the paladin with advantage or any of the other three without advantage. Once he does, the paladin knows of his presence. The bugbear is in the same position, except he can also attack the fighter with advantage. Once he reveals his position, the entire party knows where he is, not just the cleric and rogue. The cleric always knew where everyone was, so on his turn he can attack any of them. Finally, the hobgoblin can attack the paladin with advantage or any of the other three without. Once he does, his presence is revealed to the surprised paladin. On the second round, the entire party knows the location of all four enemies and the paladin gets to act as normal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Age: 33 | Sex: Male | Languages: French and English | Roles: DM and Player
I do this all the time, but I don't use passive scores to set a baseline DC. I just prompt certain people to make rolls. The rest don't get to (unless they asked). I also have a house rule that no more than two players can roll for the same thing except in particular situations.
In ambush situations, I just ask the wizard (passive perception 21) and the bard (passive 18) to roll perception checks if the party isn't already keeping an eye on their surroundings. And in roleplay, the ever-suspicious cleric (passive insight 22) gets occasional unprompted whispers about NPCs.
I do similar but the party state who is at the front of the group, I allow a max of 2 people to make the rolls, so usually there are 2 scouting forward a little ways ahead. I then have people at the back and in the middle also make rolls for there sectors. This forces the party to split up the “stealthy perception people” as they have learnt an ambush can come from behind as well as up front.
I am writing up a oneshot and I got to a bit where the party is ambushed, and I wanted to give them a chance to avoid being ambushed, but when 5 people roll a D20, at least one of them is bound to succeed most of the time, making it a moot point.
As such, I decided to use passive perception to prompt the perception check - in this case, any character with passive perception 15 can attempt a DC15 perception check to notice the ambush. There are 3 levels of awareness available - not a clue (PP<15), saw something out of the corner of your eye, not sure what (PP15+, failed check), or noticing the ambush (PP15+, passed check).
Has anyone else used this two-stage mechanic to avoid the whole party rolling checks and then inevitably one of them passing, and so telling the group? I think it seems quite neat, and I'm looking forward to using it!
I know this is going to sound like semantics, but your setup is much like a PC's Perception Score being high enough to spot a trap ('cause an ambush *is* a trap), and then asking for an Investigation Check to determine how the trap works, what the trigger is, that the funny looking bush is really a bugbear covered in leaves and moss...
That said, my opinion is that this is how these types of interactions are supposed to kinda work. A high perception skill allows for things to be noticed that might otherwise go unnoticed, but the extent that the out-of-place thing, and it's purpose, might require some intentional focus and study. Depending on the PC's knowledge and experience (have they seen something like this before?), I might call for investigation, or history to either Sherlock Holmes the trap/ambush mechanics, or to remember seeing, hearing, or smelling that thing they noticed previously. Player hears a bird call (passive score > DC), player is asked for a nature check --> passes check --> recognizes bird call is fake/not from this area. Fails check --> still knows that something is off, but just can't put their finger on it. This may prompt for the party to stop, look, listen or backtrack to last known safe terrain and re-assess route and approach.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Just to clarify, I wasn't setting the DC of the check by the passive perception, I was using the passive perception to gauge whether or not the PC gets to make a check at all.
In this case, the party is being trailed through the side-streets. I wanted to first establish who would notice something out of the corner of their eye, and then allow them to make a perception check to turn & see it in time. So those with a low Passive Perception would not even get to attempt the roll. Having high PP would let them guarantee that they see something, but they might not get any information out of that if they roll low!
Just to clarify, I wasn't setting the DC of the check by the passive perception, I was using the passive perception to gauge whether or not the PC gets to make a check at all.
In this case, the party is being trailed through the side-streets. I wanted to first establish who would notice something out of the corner of their eye, and then allow them to make a perception check to turn & see it in time. So those with a low Passive Perception would not even get to attempt the roll. Having high PP would let them guarantee that they see something, but they might not get any information out of that if they roll low!
Oh i see you wanted to set a minimum Perception score by which a character can attempt to male a Wisdom (Perception) check. I normally only allow or disallow a check if someone is trained or untrained. For exemple, i may require training in Arcana to even try some Intelligence (Arcana) check. But i never used a score to establish if a check could be attempted. So rather than permission being from having training, it's from being good enought, which grant DMs even more control on which check can be attempted or not. I don't dislike it.
I use the monster's passive stealth (10+stealth mod) as a set DC. The DC decreases by 5 for characters actively making a perception check at the moment - for example, a goblin requires passive perception 15 or higher to spot, or a DC 10 active perception check. I use that second bit to reward players who take the time to notice the fine details that hint an ambush.
As a side note, if a party member has a particularly high passive perception, let them shine and spot the ambush individually. They can attack on the first round even when everyone else is surprised, which should make them feel good about their character's talents. It's pretty frustrating for a player if the DM tries to avoid triggering their skills and special features, although it's okay to have them fail sometimes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am writing up a oneshot and I got to a bit where the party is ambushed, and I wanted to give them a chance to avoid being ambushed, but when 5 people roll a D20, at least one of them is bound to succeed most of the time, making it a moot point.
As such, I decided to use passive perception to prompt the perception check - in this case, any character with passive perception 15 can attempt a DC15 perception check to notice the ambush. There are 3 levels of awareness available - not a clue (PP<15), saw something out of the corner of your eye, not sure what (PP15+, failed check), or noticing the ambush (PP15+, passed check).
Has anyone else used this two-stage mechanic to avoid the whole party rolling checks and then inevitably one of them passing, and so telling the group? I think it seems quite neat, and I'm looking forward to using it!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I've heard of this system being used on this forum before, wherein the Passive Perception sets the DC for a Active Perception roll. I think it's an easier way to wrap one's head around the stat, and it's one I might try instead of the method I've banged on about before (or use this to compliment my existing method of using Passive Perception).
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
I never used a check for an ambush where the diffulty is based on the observer's Perception score. I instead use Passive Perception vs Dexterity ( Stealth) check or a set DC.
Using the observer's Perception score means the higher one have less chance to notice the ambush than the lower one and it's not something i would ever use. Being more perceptive should facilitate spotting ambush, not make it harder.
I do this all the time, but I don't use passive scores to set a baseline DC. I just prompt certain people to make rolls. The rest don't get to (unless they asked). I also have a house rule that no more than two players can roll for the same thing except in particular situations.
In ambush situations, I just ask the wizard (passive perception 21) and the bard (passive 18) to roll perception checks if the party isn't already keeping an eye on their surroundings. And in roleplay, the ever-suspicious cleric (passive insight 22) gets occasional unprompted whispers about NPCs.
I tend to use passives similar to what Theologyofbagels does, to cue ME as to who gets to roll when. It prevents dogpile rolling on stuff, which some groups tend to want to try. Passive Perception I use as the OP stated, you notice something seems off, or similar, to a specific character. I've had others say "I want to do a perception check too!" and I reply "Everything looks normal to you," without even seeing a roll. Players need to learn they make rolls for checks when the DM says they do, not when they want to spam rolls at something to "win" by sheer number of attempts.
Passives high enough to just "see" something walking by means I messed up the DC. Why the heck would I set a DC of 15 on a "hidden" door when the Rogue has a PP of 19?
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The rules on surprise mechanics are simple.
Basically, you only need one monster failing their check to prevent surprise. Below is an example.
Monsters' Stealth Checks
PCs' Passive Perceptions
The cleric, rogue and fighter all noticed the orc, so they aren't surprised. Unlike them, the paladin failed to notice anything and is definitely surprised. However, no one noticed the goblin, so no one knows he's there until he reveals himself. The bugbear also successfully hid his presence from the fighter. Now let's see what happens once initiative is rolled.
Order of Initiative
The rogue and fighter both act first, but they don't know that a goblin is hiding, so they only get to choose who of the other three they want to attack first. Next up is the goblin who attack with advantage due to being hidden, but now the whole party is aware of his presence. The paladin is surprised and skips his turn. The orc can now attack the paladin with advantage or any of the other three without advantage. Once he does, the paladin knows of his presence. The bugbear is in the same position, except he can also attack the fighter with advantage. Once he reveals his position, the entire party knows where he is, not just the cleric and rogue. The cleric always knew where everyone was, so on his turn he can attack any of them. Finally, the hobgoblin can attack the paladin with advantage or any of the other three without. Once he does, his presence is revealed to the surprised paladin. On the second round, the entire party knows the location of all four enemies and the paladin gets to act as normal.
Age: 33 | Sex: Male | Languages: French and English | Roles: DM and Player
I do similar but the party state who is at the front of the group, I allow a max of 2 people to make the rolls, so usually there are 2 scouting forward a little ways ahead. I then have people at the back and in the middle also make rolls for there sectors. This forces the party to split up the “stealthy perception people” as they have learnt an ambush can come from behind as well as up front.
I know this is going to sound like semantics, but your setup is much like a PC's Perception Score being high enough to spot a trap ('cause an ambush *is* a trap), and then asking for an Investigation Check to determine how the trap works, what the trigger is, that the funny looking bush is really a bugbear covered in leaves and moss...
That said, my opinion is that this is how these types of interactions are supposed to kinda work. A high perception skill allows for things to be noticed that might otherwise go unnoticed, but the extent that the out-of-place thing, and it's purpose, might require some intentional focus and study. Depending on the PC's knowledge and experience (have they seen something like this before?), I might call for investigation, or history to either Sherlock Holmes the trap/ambush mechanics, or to remember seeing, hearing, or smelling that thing they noticed previously. Player hears a bird call (passive score > DC), player is asked for a nature check --> passes check --> recognizes bird call is fake/not from this area. Fails check --> still knows that something is off, but just can't put their finger on it. This may prompt for the party to stop, look, listen or backtrack to last known safe terrain and re-assess route and approach.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Thanks for the replies!
Just to clarify, I wasn't setting the DC of the check by the passive perception, I was using the passive perception to gauge whether or not the PC gets to make a check at all.
In this case, the party is being trailed through the side-streets. I wanted to first establish who would notice something out of the corner of their eye, and then allow them to make a perception check to turn & see it in time. So those with a low Passive Perception would not even get to attempt the roll. Having high PP would let them guarantee that they see something, but they might not get any information out of that if they roll low!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Oh i see you wanted to set a minimum Perception score by which a character can attempt to male a Wisdom (Perception) check. I normally only allow or disallow a check if someone is trained or untrained. For exemple, i may require training in Arcana to even try some Intelligence (Arcana) check. But i never used a score to establish if a check could be attempted. So rather than permission being from having training, it's from being good enought, which grant DMs even more control on which check can be attempted or not. I don't dislike it.
I use the monster's passive stealth (10+stealth mod) as a set DC. The DC decreases by 5 for characters actively making a perception check at the moment - for example, a goblin requires passive perception 15 or higher to spot, or a DC 10 active perception check. I use that second bit to reward players who take the time to notice the fine details that hint an ambush.
As a side note, if a party member has a particularly high passive perception, let them shine and spot the ambush individually. They can attack on the first round even when everyone else is surprised, which should make them feel good about their character's talents. It's pretty frustrating for a player if the DM tries to avoid triggering their skills and special features, although it's okay to have them fail sometimes.
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair